RNC RECAP

Last night brought a close to the RNC Nominating Convention.  And what a close it was.  The entire convention was well done, from the debt clock to the well-made video vignettes that played between speakers.  The energy was high and the speakers were inspired. 

If the only speeches you've seen are Ryan and Romney's you miss a lot.  Mia Love gave a real barn burner and it was easy to see why she has garnered so much attention recently.  It's unfortunate that after her speech, she was called an "Autie Tom" and her Wikipedia page was vandalized by racist bigots who seem to be a bit afraid of a black conservative woman.  Susana Martinez was hilarious and is without doubt a rising star.  In fact. there were so many fresh, young faces in the Grand Old Party that is was reassuring to see such a deep, diverse bench.  It's also probably pretty unsettling to the other side.  No wonder they are a little panicky.

The big buzz today isn't really Sen. Marco Rubio's wonderful speech, which should be getting plenty of positive airtime (and probably would be, if only there were a 'D' after his name, instead of an 'R').  The talk wasn't even about Mitt Romney's speech, which was very good.  The part about his father giving his mother a rose every day of their married life was particularly touching, and he was quite clear on his vision for what he thinks America can be and firm in his belief that he can provide the answers that Barack Obama has failed to provide for the past four years.  His was a vision of that shining city on a hill reborn.  My favorite line was, "When the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American."  Amen, brother!

 No, the big buzz today is all about Clint Eastwood's speech last night.  Apparently the political press was expecting an entertainer to do something other than, you know, entertain.  Did they expect a policy speech from the guy?  He's an actor!  One of my favorite quotes of the night came from Eastwood - "We all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party.  He's just kind of a grin with a body behind it." Priceless! I also liked, "Politicians are employees of ours.  And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go."  Exactly.  He certainly shook things up and his empty chair monologue most certainly wasn't a boring political speech.  The fact that liberals found it to be an unhinged rant isn't surprising.  After all, when isn't something coming out of a conservative's mouth an unhinged rant according to them?  An actor, playing a scene to an imaginary character?  Unheard of!!!1!1!  He must be losing his mind!!  But, then, that was a foregone conclusion anyway, when he signed up for the RNC instead of the DNC.  After all, if you're a conservative, you're either old, crazy, stupid or evil, right?

The entire convention had such a hopeful, forward-thinking vibe to it.  Sure, there were some shots at President Obama - this is, after all, a Republican convention.  Not only is it acceptable to bash the other side, it's sort of expected.  Which is why so many on the right were disappointed with Gov. Chris Christie's speech.  They had hoped for an Obama-bashing, in-your-face, "Jersey-style" rhetorical beat-down, and instead were treated to a kinder, gentler Christie who wanted to set the tone for the convention - this is who we are, this is what we believe, and this is what we can be once more.  His speech was excellent, just not what people were expecting.  And we know how the media just hate it when things don't go as they plan.  There is no doubt they were loaded for bear with him and ready to knock the "tone" of the convention.  Sike!

What struck me the most, however, was the overarching story for many of the professional speakers.  Many republican governors spoke over the course of the three days, and without fail, their stories chronicled their attempts to fix the mess their predecessors had left for them - some even having to work with opposition legislatures, much as President Obama has faced.  But where the federal government has ground to a standstill because the democrats' idea of "compromise" is for republicans to simply rubber stamp whatever expensive scheme they concoct next, the republican governors have actually worked with their legislatures and turned their states around instead of demagoguing them for political advancement.  It can be done.  Mitt Romney did it in Massachusetts, and he can do it again on a federal level.

Romney's entire career seems to be a dress rehearsal for just this moment in history.  Bain Capital was all about trying to turn businesses around.  Sometimes they weren't successful, sometimes businesses had to close.  But their success record far outweighs their failures, and their ethics have never been questioned.  Well, until now, when it is politically expedient to try to demonize a decent, ethical businessman in an attempt to make the base politician he is running against look better by comparison.

There was a lot of controversy over Romney's departure from Bain, but little talk about the venture he left Bain to pursue.  Once again, he averted sure disaster and saved a failing enterprise and turned it into a triumph.  This time, the scandal-riddled disaster was the 2002 Utah Olympics.  He waded in and turned it around. 

That is what the man does.  He turns things around.  And if ever we needed someone to turn things around for us, it's now.  Perhaps it's the post-convention buzz, perhaps not, but my reservations about Romney - whom I had planned to vote for, but with my nose firmly held - have been assuaged.  I feel confident now, and my vote against Obama has become a vote, most enthusiastically, for Romney.

The spin from the convention has been brutally negative in the press.  From MSNBC's "Whites Only"
policy to the constant attempts to find racism and sexism where none exists, the neo-pravda media have shamed themselves over and over and over (and that's just covering the convention!).  No wonder no one takes them seriously anymore.  Even so, we still have an uphill climb. 

All in all, the convention was a success.  There is already a modest bounce, which has brought Romney even with Obama.  The next day or two might show more of a bump.  The general election is in full swing now.

Let the games begin!

Read more...

RNC RECAP

WHAT NOW?

Now that the arguments both for and against ObamaCare have been made, it is in the Supreme Court's hands.  Going into the fight, the law's supporters were cocky and arrogant.  Coming out the other side, it's a different story, to say the least (actually, the term "panic" seems to be the go-to phrase).  While we wait for the Court to make it's decision, I'd like to see some ideas from Republicans about what to replace the law with in the event it is struck down.

It is important to note that while oral arguments went badly for ObamaCare, oral arguments are only a small part of the overall process.  It may seem that the law went down in flames, but we won't really know for sure until the Court's session ends in June and they issue their verdict.  They vote today on the issue and will spend the next few months writing their opinions.   Keep in mind, too, that their vote today might not be the final verdict we see this summer.  Justices have been known to change their vote upon reading a particularly persuasive opposing argument.  So we really won't know for sure until the published opinions are released over the summer.  Anything released before then is mere speculation and should be regarded as such.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is taking the brunt of the blame from the left for the judicial beating the law took over the last few days.  Poor guy.  His inability to defend the mandate's alleged constitutionality wasn't due to incompetence, it was due to the indefensible unconstitutionality of the mandate.  Simply dismissing talk of constitutionality out of hand as the left has consistently done is just not a convincing argument outside of the echo chamber. His stumbling over whether it was a tax or a penalty wasn't because he is too inept to figure out the difference, it's because he has been put in the difficult position of trying to, at times, make it not just both, but also neither.  I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, considering. 

The law, as conservatives have been saying for two years now, is fatally flawed.  That has now been made quite clear by the probing questions of the Justices that cut through to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) at the heart of the matter.  The question now is severability.  How do you strike down the mandate without causing an insurance industry "death spiral"?  How do they decide what stays and what goes (my favorite comment on it was Scalia's invocation of eighth amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment in regards to having to read the bill)?

While we wait for the verdict of the court, due sometime this summer, Congressional Republicans need to take the opportunity to talk about their free market solutions in the event the law is struck down.  Having a series of small bills that would implement those solutions at the ready would be a wise decision as well, particularly since the White House has decided to forgo a contingency plan, preferring to keep all of their eggs in the ObamaCare basket. 

Any talk of a "comprehensive" republican approach should be shunned.  If we didn't want a 2,700 page monstrosity from the left, why in heaven's name would we want the same from the right?  Small, targeted bills that address health insurance issues point by point are the way to go, not colossal, byzantine laws that will require judicial intervention to interpret. 

The "goodies" former Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised us have already been rolled out, and lots of people have felt the benefits of them, particularly those with pre-existing conditions (like myself).  Many liberal pundits have  argued in support of the law by talking about the pain that would be felt if it was struck down.  But keeping the whole confusing, cumbersome, ever-more-expensive law because of a few perks is not a good idea. 

What we need to keep in mind is that striking down the law in toto won't create a vacuum, it will return us to the pre-obamacare system.  A system that was cheaper, and covered more people, by the way.  This doesn't mean republicans shouldn't have a game plan ready, though, because while ObamaCare made things worse, they weren't that great to begin with.  It should be obvious that among the solutions republicans need to offer is a continuation of the two most popular "goodies" - abolition of pre-existing conditions and an option for parents to keep their 26 year-old adult children on their insurance.  The costs for these perks will be passed on to the consumers who opt for them, of course - but then, you're only fooling yourself if you thought they weren't going to under ObamaCare. 

Republicans also need to start making the argument for severing the ties between health insurance and employment, as well as relaxing the regulations governing interstate commerce that keeps the more than one thousand insurance companies in this country from practicing in all fifty states.  Toss in a little torte reform and and a few other free market ideas, and the disastrously lumbering behemoth that was ObamaCare can be replaced with a consumer-oriented free market that can be tailored to each individual customer according to their needs, not government diktat.

Isn't it amazing that Congress wasn't allowed to read the bill before they voted for it, the president didn't bother to read it before he signed it, and now some members of the Supreme Court are calling reading it an eighth amendment violation?  Considering the way it was written, it seems even those who were tasked with writing it didn't bother read it.  But we're all supposed to be overjoyed and filled with gratitude for having to living under it.  Yeah, right.

 For all we know, the Court could decide to uphold the law. God forbid. But in the meantime, doesn't it make sense to be prepared if they don't?


Oh, and that lame spin from the left about the law's repeal being good for democrats and bad for republicans?  Wow.  Proof positive of democratic over reach and the downfall of Obama's signature achievement due to it's being unconstitutional is going to be bad for republicans, eh?  Boy, they really are freaking out over on the left, aren't they?  They must be tied up in knots to come up with such ridiculously twisted logic.  It's almost a little sad, isn't it? 

Read more...

WHAT NOW?

OVERCOMING THE LINE IN THE SAND

The budget debate high drama last week was a real eye opener.  The resulting compromise - a smashing success all the way around when one considers how it seems absolutely no one is happy with it - not only temporarily postponed a potential economic disaster, it also drew a line in the sand.  The democrats made it perfectly clear that they are willing to send the country over the fiscal cliff in order to protect and fund Planned Parenthood.  The republicans managed to get a small concession in the banning of abortion funding for the Washington D.C. area only - something Reid et al bemoaned, even though they have enforced the ban in the past - without republican pressure.

Planned Parenthood claims no federal dollars are spent on abortions.  In that they don't send a bill to Washington for each abortion, okay, yes, the money isn't going straight to abortions; but in that they use the money they receive from taxpayers to pay doctor's and nurse's salaries and the electric bill that powers the suction machine, it certainly is.  Consider, for a moment, smoking in restaurants.  At first, regulations required a seperate seating area for smokers.  Eventually is became evident that even though the smokers were being quarantined, their smoke was not.  In fact, it was permeating every inch, as smoke is wont to do.  And so smoking in restaurants was banned entirely.   The federal funding of Planned Parenthood is like the smoke - it may not be directly used for abortions, but it is ending up that way in the long run by permeating every inch of the organization's day to day expenses.  Let's not forget that federal funding of abortions is barred, according to the Hyde Amendment.  No matter how "compassionate" it might be (it certainly isn't for the baby in question),  banned is banned, period.  Not one thin dime of taxpayer money should go to any enterprise that performs non-emergency abortions on demand.

The fact is, Planned Parenthood is a private enterprise.  It makes a profit each year, and may even be expanding in the near future.  As such, our federal government has no business subsidizing them for anything, let alone abortions. Perhaps PP should consider tapping their celebrity friends to assist them in a fundraising drive every year.  Hopefully some of them will donate not just their fame to the cause but actually put their money where their mouths are for a change.  In fact, online donations to PP since the budget battle have increased a whopping 500%.  See?  They don't need federal funding - just whip up some hysteria and voila! it's payday! 

Unfortunately, the furor with which this issue has been met by the left is, as usual these days, over the top to the point of cartoonish.  Republicans are coming to "kill women" according to Rep. Louise Slaughter.  The GOP is out to keep women from health care services, apparently out of nothing more than sheer spite and ideology.  You would think there were no other clinics or health care facilities in the US other than PP, wouldn't you?  It's almost as if, were PP to shut down tomorrow, there would no longer be any abortions available anywhere and Roe v. Wade would somehow, in a miraculously simultanious event, be reversed.

The hysteria has to stop.  The fact that we are giving more than $350 million a year to a private - and profitable - entity is reason enough to end the gravy train.  That it might, even indirectly, pay for abortions with taxpayer funds makes defunding even more imperative.  $350 million a year won't make a big dent in our debt, but when you add it in with other cuts and, most importantly, entitlement reform, it makes a tidy sum.  Much like environmentalists are always urging us to "do your part", no matter how small,  a whole bunch of littles add up to a lot.

The issue isn't access to abortions or women's health care - there are plenty of outlets for both with or without Planned Parenthood.  The issue is money.  Simply put, we don't have any.  And yet democrats keep insisting we continue to fund PP, a private organization, even when it means forty cents of every dollar we give them is borrowed.  It's time Planned Parenthood (and other crony corporations) was weaned from the public teat.

Defunding Planned Parenthood may not happen this year, but there's always 2012 and the potential of not just a Senate flip, but the White House, too.  Good things come to those who wait.

Read more...

OVERCOMING THE LINE IN THE SAND

NOW IT'S TIME FOR SOME HISTORY

"Comedian" (I use the term loosely) Bill Mahr, in what one would assume was intended to be a comedic monologue, called Sarah Palin a very naughty name.   Not only was the "joke" not funny, it was crass, juvenile and really showcased his latent misogyny beautifully.  It is a small, petty man with a little, narrow, nearly neanderthalic mind who stoops to such depths.  This is what you resort to, Mr, Mahr?  Are you so apoplectic in your rage and revulsion of all things Palin that it leaves you with only curses in your vocabulary?  Speaking as a mother, you need a time out and a big hug.  And maybe a few years of intensive therapy.

NOW has finally, finally stepped up and called him out on his base misogyny.  They also call him out for hiding behind 'compassionate' progressivism to shield them from criticism.

But NOW doesn't stop there.  They then lambaste the right ("we are on to you right-wingers") for wasting their time calling out the incivility.  Because they've been so quick to speak out for conservative women in the past, right?  Their animus against all things conservative reverberates throughout the release, as did their comment yesterday in response to Fox News inquiries:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep told FOXNews.com it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News.

Wow, that's a bit...petty and cranky of them.  Wouldn't want them to sully themselves dealing with Fox, now would we?  For people who are all about talking with adversaries and messaging, they sure are clueless about getting their side of the story to the opposition (read:Fox) viewing audience.

Anyhoo.  NOW communications director Lisa Bennet writes:

“Did you speak up once on behalf of a woman politician before you learned the name Sarah Palin? Did you work toward equality for women in any way prior to August 2008?” wrote Bennett. “It would be nice to think that you’ve suddenly discovered sexism and are interested in joining us in the struggle for full equality. But this really smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy: Folks with no history of working on an issue trying to discredit those who have been working for decades on the issue. Ridiculous.”

Uh, Ms. Bennet, perhaps you've heard of a little thing called Women's Suffrage?  Yeah, well, according to none other than Susan B. Anthony,

“I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote”

Not convinced?  How about this:

Republicans led the fight for women’s voting rights — and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists — including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton — were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for “the Republican ticket — straight.”

The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them.
 

Maybe it's time to set aside the rhetoric and lame, erroneous portrayal of eeevil republicans and brush up on your history, Ms. Bennet.

Ridiculous, indeed. 

Shrill, too.

Read more...

NOW IT'S TIME FOR SOME HISTORY

WASHINGTON STANDARDS

So, let me get this straight.....Rep.Christopher Lee (R-NY) sent a topless photo of himself to an adult woman as part of a flirty exchange in response to a 'woman seeking man' ad on Craigslist and has resigned over the ensuing scandal.  Granted, he said he was a divorced lobbyist instead of the truth, that he's a married congressman, and no doubt he has quite a few uncomfortable nights on the sofa in the future, but in the grand scheme, the whole "scandal" is pretty, well, meh.  Still, this guy is resigning not because he broke some laws and is under investigation, but because he simply doesn't want to be a "distraction".

And yet, on the other side of the aisle, we have Rep. Charlie Rangel, who has been investigated and found to be culpable for breaking tax laws - that he helped write - and was censured by his own party, and he's still a sitting member of congress.

Sure.  Why not. 

Michael Ramirez has a somewhat different take on Lee's escapades:

Read more...

WASHINGTON STANDARDS

MEME BUSTERS Updated

This week seems to be meme destruction week.  It has been a devastating week for some well-worn liberal canards. Two different vehemently upheld liberal/progressive beliefs have been proved  wrong and one is under heavy fire.  We seem to be reaching a point of implosion for the democrat party and the fallout is not restricted to just the halls of Congress.

First on the chopping block was the much-hyped "shovel ready jobs" that were used to sell the Porkulus bill.  According to President Obama in a recent New York Times piece, he has since learned that

"there's no such thing as shovel ready projects".

 

Apparently the only thing shovel ready about that bill was the bill itself.... Too bad Mr. Obama couldn't have figured out the futility of the effort before he spent a trillion dollars of other people's money.

And then there is the meme that the Tea Parties are chock-a-block full of racist signs carried by white-hooded klansmen out for blood.  All the press and liberals have been talking about is how incredibly, overtly racist and dangerous the movement is.  Eh, not so much, it turns out.   The woman who did the study has liberal creds, inasmuch as she is a graduate student from UCLA.  For anyone who has attended a Tea Party, the results of this study are unsurprising.  What is surprising is the fact that the Washington Post actually carried the story.  Doubtless the rest of the neo-pravda media will be all over this story and apologize for their biased, flat-out wrong coverage of the movement.  Yeah, riiiiiiiight.

Another meme that is in the process of being busted is the one about conservatism being solely the jurisdiction of whites.  In a piece in Ebony Magazine entitled "The Browning of the GOP", author Armstrong Williams makes the case for the growing number of self-identified Black Republicans and their place in the history of the GOP.  He also explains the single event that caused the exodus from republicans to democrats in the 1960's - an exodus that has been the norm for so long that Democrats have managed to fool the black community into thinking they were always democrats.   But, as Mr. Williams states:

But today, the great flight has the chance to be met by the great return as a new breed of Black conservative has emerged and taken center stage in the Republican Party.

This meme has not yet been busted, but it seems to be coming off the tracks.  The best argument in favor of the Ebony article is the unprecidented fourteen black republican candidates running for Congress this fall.  Primary season boasted a whopping thirty-two black conservative candidates vying for the republican nod.  There is a very good chance that three of them will win their elections, which would set a record for the most black republicans since Reconstruction.  It is a small number, but it is a start, and hopefully more black conservatives will step up and run in the future.  If Messrs. West, Scott and Frasier are any indication of the caliber of candidate in the offing, the Republican party could hardly do better.

The liberal/progressive talking points seem to be going down like a line of dominoes.  Not only are their recent claims being proven to be false, but even long-held positions are being challenged. 

The information age is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

UPDATE:  Uh-oh, another one bites the dust!

Read more...

MEME BUSTERS Updated

YOU CUT

Congressional Republicans, headed by Minority Whip Eric Cantor have started a new website called "You Cut" that allows common Americans to vote for what spending cuts you want to see Congress adopt. 

This is an interesting idea, if it takes off.  They are offering up five different spending programs for the chopping block each week.  Whatever program earns the most votes from the public will be offered up for a vote in Congress the next week.  No doubt they will get a lot of flack and ridicule from the left over this one, but I personally think it's great for a few reasons.

First of all, it's fascinating to see all of the ways that Congress is wasting our money (and how much is being wasted).  You hear rumors about some of the crazy or unnecessary things our money is being spent on, but to see it in black and white on a Congressional website, well, it really puts it into perspective.  If you have high blood pressure or ulcers, you might want to medicate yourself before you check it out each week!

Second, in a political climate where it often feels like the train is out of control and heading off the tracks, this offers a way to give Congress your two cents on a very important issue - spending.  And not just spending in general, as we have been attempting to do with the Tea Parties - we're talking specific, targeted spending programs.  President Obama created the deficit reduction committee, but it won't be coming out with anything constructive until December, and doubtless there will be more in the way of taxation instead of spending cuts in their recommendations.  Increased taxation will only prolong our suffering - especially at the levels they will need to tax in order to make a dent in the deficit.  The only way out of this hole is through spending cuts.  Politicians hate spending cuts because someone always loses out and voters become alienated.  Perhaps if the cuts are brought to them by popular demand, they will grow some spines and do what's necessary to save this country from financial ruin.  Don't hold your breath, though.  These are politicians we're talking about, after all.

Finally, there are major political ramifications to this.  As I mentioned before, the left will attempt to ridicule the Republicans on this - after all, when they have no other defense, they always turn to derision.  The odds of the democrats voting down these proposed cuts are very high, but they need to really think before they do so.  Not only will they be voting down Republican introduced spending cuts at a time when they are trying to paint themselves as deficit hawks, but they will be voting down cuts that were presented to Congress by popular fiat.  They are used to thumbing their noses at We the Peons in general, but this will be a direct dismissal of what the American people want.  The big question is, will their unprecedented tone deafness go that far?

In order to submit your vote, you must give them an email address.  That's it.  No other personal information required.  You can vote more than once (I voted first for the Welfare Non-Reform Program and then the Subsidized Union Activities), and you can vote online or via text.  So check out "You Cut" on Eric Cantor's website.  Let me know what you think, and, as they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often!

Cross Posted at The Ripley Report

Read more...

YOU CUT

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

The far left in this country have been waging a war of words for decades, and their favorite tactic is changing meanings of words to suit their needs.  They are also fond of assigning labels, whether they are applicable or not.  They love to disparage their opponents by using the "scary words" - racist, fascist, extremist.  They know that people back down when they are called certain names, whether they apply to the situation or not. 

The most common example is, of course, the claims that the Tea Parties are racist.  There is no proof of this, but repetition brings on a sense of truth.  If they scream it loud enough and long enough, people will believe it.  Alan Colmes said today that just because there wasn't video of the alleged racial and homophobic slurs doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Actually, Mr. Colmes, that's exactly what it means.  With hundreds of cameras, several in the hands of the alleged "victims" themselves, the fact that there is no video proof whatsoever is in reality proof that the incident never occurred.  And yet the narrative continues.

Today on Fox and Friends, actress Aisha Tyler was part of a panel discussing political topics.  She is obviously an intelligent, informed woman (she has a degree in political science), but she said something that really irritated me, and it's something that definitely needs to be addressed.

One of the other guests commented that the current administration was fascistic.  Ms. Tyler took offense to that term, and stated that fascism is a strictly right-wing policy and so cannot be used to describe the current left-wing administration.

Let's take a look at what Merriam Webster has to say about the definition of  "fascism":

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I have checked other dictionaries, but have not seen a single entry that states that fascism is a right-wing only term. The premise that the Nazi's were right-wingers has sprung up in acedemic circles and is being taught in our universities - Ms. Tyler's thought process is most likely due to her poli-sci degree.  Why has fascism (and nazism) been assigned to the right?  (via Free Republic):

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

One also wonders if this attempt to demonize Nazism and make it a right-wing contrivance is because, unlike the atrocities perpetrated in the name of communism, the effects of nazism were photographed and documented for posterity.  It is difficult to whitewash the horrors of the Nazi socialist state because the entire world was inundated with those horrific images.  If that photographic evidence had not existed, would fascism still be considered a bad thing today?  Communism, on the other hand, has remained in the shadows, because the communist dictatorships never allowed such information to be disseminated.  Western cameras were not allowed into the gulags and firing lines.  Documentation was destroyed, redacted or remains classified to this day.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The left is revising history yet again in their attempt to portray the Nazis as right-wingers, but if you check out the real history, you will find that they were socialists - the term "nazi" stands for National Socialist Workers Party.  Socialism is most definitely NOT a right-wing ideology.  The Nazis ruled from a strong central government that regulated both the economy and society with an iron fist, and they were assuredly in firm control of the press.  One need look no further than the death camps and all of the accounts of dissenters disappearing in the night to verify the "forcible suppression of opposition", and Hitler easily comes to mind when the topic of brutal dictators comes up.

The left also uses corporatism in their argument that the Nazis and Mussolini were right-wingers, but, again, this doesn't fly.  Our past few administrations are perfect examples of corporations benefitting from both sides of the political spectrum, but with this administration there might be a little buyer's remorse happening.  The left is just as arm-in-arm with corporations as the right, but there are one or two major differences between them.  The republicans are pro free market capitalism, and aren't really interested in government control of corporations - Bush-era bailouts didn't come with the strings of governmental control.   The left's bailouts come with strings so thick and unbreakable that they could be used as cables on the Golden Gate bridge.  Under Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the federal government is becoming more and more entwined with and calling the shots more and more often for corporate America.  The left also has something the right does not - the "power of persuasion" of it's union minions.  Power they have been wielding quite effectively over the past year or so.

Hitler was vehemently anti-capitalism, because he felt that the capitalist system favored the Jews.  Our current administration is anti-capitalism because of their quest for the perfect socialist utopia.  The reasons may be different, but the end result is the same - the destruction of the free market economy and the slide into socialism.

For those who scoff at the socialist label, I offer this definition of state socialism, which could also be considered "european-style" socialism:

an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class

We have allowed the left to hijack our history and turn it on it's head.  Up is down, left is right, and disinformation rules.  We must take back the narrative and set the record straight.  So the next time you hear someone call you a fascist because you lean right, set them straight.    Keeping silent allows their version to become the accepted reality.  Standing up to them will be a hard fight, but it's one worth winning, and it's one that most definitely CAN be won. 

Our quest over the next few years isn't just to take our country back politically, it's to restore our history, and teach it to our kids.  We must restore the true meaning of names and labels and thus strip the liberals of their power.  Always remember - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Read more...

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

DEMON PASS NOW THE RULE

The House voted 222-203 to use demon pass on Sunday's upcoming health care vote today.  A few dems who said they were no votes on Obamacare voted yes on the use of the Slaughter Solution, but it's anybody's guess as to whether they will keep their word on Sunday and vote no or not. 

This is bad, bad news, since many fence-sitting dems seemed to be more concerned about the process than the content or cost of the bill.  Apparently the process wasn't as worrisome as first thought.  With any luck, they will realize the error of their ways come November, but, in the meantime, we will have to deal with the repercussions of their actions.

If they pass this monstrosity with demon pass on Sunday, and it ends up going to Obama for a signature, there are still a few things that can be done.

Namely, lawsuits.

There are a number of suits being prepared.  Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation is preparing to file suit against the federal government if they pass the health care legislation through deem and pass. 

But wait, there's more....

Idaho passed legislation last night that would require the state attorney general to file suit against the federal government because of the individual mandate.

Virginia was the first state to pass legislation against the federal government over the health care legislation.  On March 11, 2010 they passed a bill opposing the individual mandate, arguing that insurance is a good and the federal government has no right to force their citizens to buy a good of any kind.

Thirty-six other states have filed legislation to challenge Obamacare - .Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Missisippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Four more states have indicated an intent to file - Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Utah.

It may only be symbolic, but the fact that 38 states are preparing to sue the federal government over a piece of legislation could easily be viewed as a consitutional crisis.

It's a bit surprising that Texas wasn't on any of those lists, but, then again, they seem to prefer to seceed altogether. 

My home state of Florida is stepping up to the plate, too.  The attorney general, Bill McCollum, has sent a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General:

"I invite you to join me in preparing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of whatever individual mandate provision emerges, immediately upon the legislation becoming law."

Sunday's vote does not mean the end of this 'debate'.

Oh, and you'd better gird your loins - The One is saying the Slaughter rule is so nifty that they might just use it on immigration "reform" and other goodies.

It has been said that Mr. Obama has told House democrats that his presidency is at stake.  Because when you really get down to it, it's always about Obama, isn't it?

There is the faint hope of a silver lining to all of this, and it all depends on the Supreme Court.  With any luck, the fact that there is no provision allowing the feds to force the public to buy goods nor pass laws by 'deeming' them passed, that more than half of the states are preparing to file lawsuits, and that the majority of the American people are vehemently against this bill will weigh heavily in their decision. 

It looks like this mess is going to pass, even though Senate Republicans are preparing a flood of amendments to slow things down.  Reid only needs 51 though, and he most probably has it.

We can only hope that the legal challenges stave off the taxation that will start immediately, and that the Supreme court will hear the cases and find in our favor.  Hopefully the remaining 12 states will file their own legislation along with the rest, but counting on California, Oregon, Vermont and Hawaii is probably not a wise move.

All we can do now is watch democrats flip and flop like fish in the sun as they are threatened and bribed for the final vote.
.

Read more...

DEMON PASS NOW THE RULE

THE BATTLE IN TEXAS

I mentioned in my post The Revision of Pride that there is a battle brewing in Texas over classroom textbooks.  The battle is heating up, and, at least so far, the conservatives are winning.

Here's a little backstory for anyone who isn't up on the subject.  For the past few decades, the textbook publishers have been catering to the demands of California's board of education, because California bought the most textbooks of any state in the nation.  That certainly explains a lot about the liberal trend in the classroom, doesn't it?  Unfortunately for California, their budget woes have translated into fewer new textbook purchases.

However, what is unfortunate for California is quite fortunate for the rest of us.  Texas has since replaced California as the leading textbook purchaser for the nation.  This means the state of Texas can now make demands of the publishing companies, much as the state of California did, and those changes may well effect textbooks everywhere.  And demand, they are!

The Texas Board of Education is in the process of debating and voting on changes to curriculum, and the battle between liberal and conservative board members has been heated, but, so far, the conservatives are winning:

Conservative members had their way in the 11-4 vote, which came one day after several Democratic board members walked out, claiming the proposed standards dilute the contribution of minorities to American history and culture. The debate, which picked up again Friday morning, ended with only a single Democrat voting to support the new standards.

The fact that the liberals walked out should come as no surprise.  If we have learned anything from the past year+ of liberal rule it is that the only acceptable compromise is full capitulation to their demands.  Anything less is unacceptable.  The fact that there was one democrat who voted for the changes is cause for hope, though, and that democrat should be given credit for agreeing that learning about American exceptionalism is more important than the cultural significance of hip-hop music. 

The main liberal argument is that there isn't enough minority representation.  There were many minority contributions to the creation and preservation of this Union, but let's face it - back in the 1700's, whether in America or Europe, minorities didn't have much voice.  Happily, those wrongs were righted and became the freedom we enjoy today, but it doesn't take away from the basic facts of life.  This country was founded by a group of white men.  This is not a travesty - it just is what it is. 

Does that mean that our kids shouldn't learn about people like Frederick Douglass, Dolley Madison or Sojourner Truth?  Of course they should - they helped shape this country and should be remembered for their contributions.  But should our Founding Fathers be replaced by Famous Amos and Mary Kay?  I personally believe that the black community in America has contributed far more than just a cookie maker (wildly successful entrepreneur though he may be) and hip-hop, and it is a disservice to them to relegate their portion of history to those narrow confines.

As a woman, I feel that the suffrage movement should also be discussed, if not in depth, at least touched upon.   Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the many other thousands of women who risked life and limb in their nearly 100 year battle to win the priviledge of voting for all of us is something that has been lost to the girls of today.  Teaching our children about what they went through is important as a reminder that some sacrifices are worth it, and everyone deserves dignity and a voice.

This battle in Texas is so important, because the education we give our children dictates where we are headed as a country.  The California years, when they dictated the curricula, lead us down the path of collectivism and european socialism.  History lessons are based on feelings and impressions, not hard fact.  Our children are being taught to relate history into how they feel about an event, not the factual repercussions of it.    

The liberals swept themselves in to victory in 2008 because that election was enabled by the subtle decades-long indoctrination of our youth (who are now beginning to reject that flawed reality).  It's time to turn it around, and the Texas board of education has become the front line in the battle. 

The tide is turning, though, the tide is turning.  To keep it turning, we have to learn from the opposition.  The main tactic that has worked so well for them has been their role as the 'squeaky wheel'.  Their protests, lawsuits and generally irritating tactics have served them well.  We are learning their lessons, but we are only applying them to the federal realm.  As Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local".   Yes, we need to keep the pressure on the apparent federal socialist revolution that is taking place before our eyes, but we also need to apply that same pressure locally - most especially our school boards and PTA. 

Our children are literally our future, and we need to be as aware of that fact as the liberal/progressives have been.  We need to fight them tooth and nail for the hearts and minds of our children.  The Texas fight is just the beginning, but what a beginning it is!

Read more...

THE BATTLE IN TEXAS

HEALTH CARE HUSTLE

The health care intervention summit can be summed up thusly:

The Democrats spoke for a total of 5 hours 46 minutes and the Republicans were allowed to speak for 1 hour 50 minutes...and the Republicans still won.

Pelosi told a whopper, but Harry Reid was determined to outdo her. 

Obama got testy but still managed to avoid the subject he was being grilled on.  "We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about what the American people need right now."  Translation:  "How dare you call me out on that - stay on topic!"  (Saul Alinsky translation - the ends justify the means - it doesn't matter how we got here; what matters is that we're here.)

All in all, it was sort of fun - in a really excruciatingly boring way.

Read more...

HEALTH CARE HUSTLE

THE SILVER LINING OF ANGER

There are some interesting polls out today from Rasmussen.  I have mentioned before that I like Rasmussen because they poll likely voters, instead of just adults.  It gives a more accurate snapshot of electorate leanings.

According to Rasmussen,75% of Americans are somewhat angry with the current government policies.    Out of that 75%, 45% are very angry.  Just 19% are not very (11%) or not at all angry (8%).  I have to admit I'm a little surprised that there are even 8% not at all angry.   Considering those people are likely to vote, it makes requiring current events tests before voting seem more imperative than ever....

Broken down by party, 89% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and a jaw-dropping 78% of independents are ticked off.   That's right, sisters, you are definitely not alone!

These numbers represent an overall anger at Washington in general; it is not party specific at all.  There is great discontent will any incumbent.  Agendas and voting records will be sharply scrutinized this election cycle.  If you have been fiscally irresponsible with taxpayer money, your days are most likely numbered, whether there is a D or an R after your name.

The question is how it will happen - primary challenges, D's turning to R's and vice versa, or Independent (TEA) party surprise wins. 

And therein lies the silver lining.  The American people, after decades of allowing our politicians to ride roughshod over us and our Constitution, are going to be set straight.  Americans are rediscovering their country, their roots, their heritage and their pride.  We are throwing off the Progressive yoke we have been harnessed to and returning to the core beliefs that have helped make this country the greatest superpower in history.

The more polls I see with results like this, the more I realize we are in for an exciting, surprising, potentially revolutionary election cycle.  The American people have woken up and are getting ready to flex their long dormant muscles and remind the elitist career politicians entrenched in Washington who is really boss.

I can't wait!

Read more...

THE SILVER LINING OF ANGER

STATE OF THE YAWN-ION

Boy, was the State of the Union speech boring last night.  Even his own people couldn't stay awake.  Well, except for Nancy Pelosi, who was doing her annoying jack-in-the-box/seal clap routine. Granted, political speeches generally are boring, but this one was particularly so because it was just a rehash of every other speech he has given for the past year.

I guess you could say that speaks to his convictions.  Unfortunately, even his own party is starting to reject his agenda - after all, he may not be up for reelection this year, but they are. 

He has offered to listen to other ideas for health care reform.  Okay, how about the many options the Republicans have offered up that are languishing in committees in both Houses?  The problem with them is that they don't require a massive new bureaucracy and entitlement, so the democrat leadership aren't interested.

He blames Bush and the Republicans and literally in the next sentence calls for bipartisanship.  Nice.

He calls for spending freezes because of our faltering economy - to start next year.  What about this year, champ?  We're hurting now.

He mentions Cap and Trade, too.  Great....more billions spent on 'science' that is looking more and more dubious with every passing day.  He argues that green jobs will stimulate the economy.  I think Spain would argue with that - for every green job they created, they lost 2.2 regular jobs.  Yeah, that will help - help make us nostalgic for the good old days of 10% unemployment....

He barely mentioned foreign affairs or the two wars we are waging.  I suppose national security isn't important enough to rate more than 5 minutes.  Perhaps he didn't want to dwell on it and risk alienating our enemies.  Wouldn't want to offend the terrorists, now would we? 

All in all, it was the same old schtick.

He is going to continue to ram his agenda down our throats, he is going to continue to bankrupt the country and risk massive inflation by printing money to pay for his agenda, and he is going to continue to ignore the fact that there are people out there in the world who want to kill as many of us as possible.

The only new thing was his announcement to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'.  As a free society, everyone has a right to be who they are, and if you are gay and want to fight and possibly die for your country, so be it.  No one should have to pretend to be something they're not, especially when you put your life on the line every day.  Our military fights for the freedom of all Americans, so all Americans should be able to join the ranks.

For those who are wary of the gayification of the military, rest assured - I'm pretty sure the more flamboyant characters won't be signing up and sashaying to the front lines wearing guyliner, platform boots and sparkly glamoflage.  There have been gays in the military throughout history, and there are gays in our military now.  As a free society, if they want their peers to know their orientation, they should be allowed to speak about it without fear of reprisal.  The stigma of homosexuality isn't what it was 20 years ago - most young people these days have known at least one gay person - and, as I said earlier, it's their country, too, and if they want to serve it, they should be allowed to do so.

So aside from 'don't ask, don't tell', the speech was pretty much the same old, same old.    Dear Leader is hell bent on bankrupting our children and forcing us all to be subservient to the Nanny State.

I have to say it's actually a little bit of a relief that he has decided not to 'pivot' and head back to the center.  That means the republicans are pretty much guaranteed to take the House come November, and possibly make the Senate a 50/50 split.

Now that's a state of the union I can get behind!

Read more...

STATE OF THE YAWN-ION

ARE YOU SURE HE'S NOT A REPUBLICAN? Updated

There has been a running commentary in the politics of the past few years that Glenn Beck touched on today.  Anyone not neck deep in democratic dogma is ridiculed as being stupid.  The left have for years portrayed themselves as the educated class.  And yet, the left makes just as many downright stupid comments as the right. 

A perfect example of this is 2008 Vice Presidential nominees Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.  Joe Biden is the original Gaffe Machine.  He has suffered from foot-in-mouth disease for decades.  And yet, who is universally known as the 'idiot'?  Sarah Palin, of course.  There's even a bumper sticker to prove it!  Biden, however, is a well-educated senior statesman, or so we're told. 

The liberals are always squawking about their intelligence.  But then one of them says something like this, and blows the whole theory out of the water (via Fox Nation):

Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said THIS about Ted Kennedy's Senate seat...“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner."

Now that's an idiot.

UPDATE:  David Schuster shows us his IQ.

Speaking of intelligence, let's not forget this moron highly intelligent, highly respected political analyst:

Read more...

ARE YOU SURE HE'S NOT A REPUBLICAN? Updated